Radical Futures: "correlation is not causation"

In his new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, Chris Anderson uses Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, as a poster child
for how giving away information online can bring personal gain. But Mr.
Muller says Mr. Anderson doesn’t have his story straight — and that his
personal experience does not support the book’s argument.

Mr. Anderson is the editor in chief of Wired magazine, and his book (available free online)
has been getting buzz in recent weeks for its argument that businesses
can use free information to spark sales of related products and
services.

In a pull-out box in the book, Mr. Anderson tells
the story of how Berkeley put lectures on YouTube from Mr. Muller’s
course “Physics for Future Presidents” that drew more than 200,000
views and turned the professor into “a Web celeb of sorts.” That part
is undisputed. But Mr. Anderson then suggests that the celebrity status
from the videos led Mr. Muller to secure a book deal, and led to
greater interest in the resulting book. As Mr. Anderson concludes,
“it’s easy to see just how good Free has been to Professor Muller.”

But in an e-mail interview with The Chronicle, Mr. Muller said the YouTube videos of his lectures did nothing to help him get a contract for Physics for Future Presidents (W.W. Norton).

“That
is wishful thinking from someone who is trying to conclude that
Webcasts lead to money,” said Mr. Muller. “But correlation is not
causation. What Anderson says may be ‘easy to see,’ but it just ain’t
so. He is letting his hoped-for conclusion drive his analysis of
events.”

Mr. Muller said that the book deal came about when a
Norton editor whom he had worked with on previous books (the professor
had already published eight) visited his office and asked him if he had
any ideas for a new one. “I don’t think [the editor] was even familiar
with my online lectures,” he said.

“Norton wasn’t really
interested in my online popularity,” Mr. Muller continued. “Best guess:
they know that people who buy and read books are a very small
population, and probably not the same as those who watch Webcasts of
lectures.”

Mr. Anderson’s book argues that the Internet makes
information so easy to distribute (and to pirate) that the best
business response is to make it free and find some ancillary service to
sell instead. “If software is free, sell support,” he writes. “If phone
calls are free, sell distant labor and talent that can be reached by
those free calls (the Indian outsourcing model in a nutshell).”

Mr. Muller doesn’t buy it, though, and says he has evidence that those video hits are not pumping up his book sales.

“I
have been personally contacted by about 1,000 people who saw my
Webcasts,” said the professor. “When the book came out, I arranged to
e-mail all of them (using Norton’s account) to let them know that a
book was now available. I then watched the sales very carefully. (I
actually have a computer that downloads the ranking every hour from
Google.) Although I had seen huge jumps in my sales when I was
interviewed on NPR (3 times) or had a book review in The Boston Globe,
and a few other things, the massive e-mailing to my Web fans produced
no discernible increase in sales. My conclusion: Web viewers don’t buy
many hardcover books.”

Mr. Anderson stands by his work, and
his use of Mr. Muller as an example. “To suggest that all Web viewers
don’t buy books seems premature,” said Mr. Anderson in an interview
with The Chronicle. He argued that the professor’s exposure on
YouTube most likely helped the sales of his book, even if indirectly.
For instance, the popularity of the videos may have made reviewers more
interested in writing about the book.

“If he believes
there’s no correlation, that’s interesting,” said Mr. Anderson. “We
have done the same type of experiments and we conclude otherwise.”

“Every product is different and every person is different,” he added. “You’ve got to find your own way to monetize celebrity.” —Jeffrey R. Young

Comments

And to prove that he doesn’t understand
that correlation is not causation, Anderson asserts that he does see a
correlation. But, of course, Muller does not deny a correlation, he
points out that that does not provide evidence that one thing is
causing the other. Arguments about the Web seem to me often to be made
up of this sort of fallacious conflation of correlation and causation,
along with “wishful thinking.”

See my post (the first one) on Anderson’s self-promotion
in the previous posting of his inane proposition that free is the
future of fortune:
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3869/college-lectures-should-be-free-online-argues-wired-magazine-editor-in-new-book

Anderson’s
thesis is 1995 Negropontean (being digital), an immensely flawed book
as it fails to see how marketing would take advantage of programming.

By
now, every journalist should know that hits on a Web site do not
translate into sales, whether we’re talking about books or newsprint.

I’m
astounded that an author like Anderson didn’t fact check his assertions
about Richard Muller whose serious science seems tainted by the hoopla
leaps in logic (i.e. more interactive exposure equals more sales).

That
said, I send kudos to Jeffrey Young for challenging Anderson and
providing his readers with first-class journalism rather than rehashed
technology “news.”

Muller might be right and Anderson wrong on the specific
issue of “causality,” but I think Muller suffers from a surprisingly
common delusion among academics: “People publish my books because I’m
brilliant.” Not because publishers are desperate to recover their
costs, and because name recognition, trendiness, pedigree, and other
factors are at work, but because . . . well, because he’s so smart that
editors walk into his office and say things like, “Have any good
ideas?”

Actually, Muller accounts for the points about recouping
costs and making a profit by noting that he had worked with the editor
on 8 previous books. That suggests a proven track record in producing
books that make money, and reflect well on the publisher. While Muller
may suffer from the academic delusion that he is published because he’s
brilliant (who doesn’t?), his track record with the publisher would
seem to be the most salient reason this book is getting published.

It’s no small task to be published by Norton, I assure
you; nor are editors there likely to be impressed with YouTube posts of
Richard A. Muller’s lectures. They do recognize that he is a member of
one of the best physics departments in the world, at Berkeley, with an
exceptional vita that contains both scholarly and teaching awards,
indicating he can convey core truths about complex topics. Those
editors also know that mainstream media continues to be the best route
for book sales as many have third-party agreements with sellers.
National Public Radio, for instance, has such an agreement with Amazon.
Dr. Muller’s book was featured in December on NPR’s
“Science Fridays.” For those who would like to hear him, here is the
link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97848779

In his new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, Chris Anderson uses Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, as a poster child
for how giving away information online can bring personal gain. But Mr.
Muller says Mr. Anderson doesn’t have his story straight — and that his
personal experience does not support the book’s argument.

Mr. Anderson is the editor in chief of Wired magazine, and his book (available free online)
has been getting buzz in recent weeks for its argument that businesses
can use free information to spark sales of related products and
services.

In a pull-out box in the book, Mr. Anderson tells
the story of how Berkeley put lectures on YouTube from Mr. Muller’s
course “Physics for Future Presidents” that drew more than 200,000
views and turned the professor into “a Web celeb of sorts.” That part
is undisputed. But Mr. Anderson then suggests that the celebrity status
from the videos led Mr. Muller to secure a book deal, and led to
greater interest in the resulting book. As Mr. Anderson concludes,
“it’s easy to see just how good Free has been to Professor Muller.”

But in an e-mail interview with The Chronicle, Mr. Muller said the YouTube videos of his lectures did nothing to help him get a contract for Physics for Future Presidents (W.W. Norton).

“That
is wishful thinking from someone who is trying to conclude that
Webcasts lead to money,” said Mr. Muller. “But correlation is not
causation. What Anderson says may be ‘easy to see,’ but it just ain’t
so. He is letting his hoped-for conclusion drive his analysis of
events.”

Mr. Muller said that the book deal came about when a
Norton editor whom he had worked with on previous books (the professor
had already published eight) visited his office and asked him if he had
any ideas for a new one. “I don’t think [the editor] was even familiar
with my online lectures,” he said.

“Norton wasn’t really
interested in my online popularity,” Mr. Muller continued. “Best guess:
they know that people who buy and read books are a very small
population, and probably not the same as those who watch Webcasts of
lectures.”

Mr. Anderson’s book argues that the Internet makes
information so easy to distribute (and to pirate) that the best
business response is to make it free and find some ancillary service to
sell instead. “If software is free, sell support,” he writes. “If phone
calls are free, sell distant labor and talent that can be reached by
those free calls (the Indian outsourcing model in a nutshell).”

Mr. Muller doesn’t buy it, though, and says he has evidence that those video hits are not pumping up his book sales.

“I
have been personally contacted by about 1,000 people who saw my
Webcasts,” said the professor. “When the book came out, I arranged to
e-mail all of them (using Norton’s account) to let them know that a
book was now available. I then watched the sales very carefully. (I
actually have a computer that downloads the ranking every hour from
Google.) Although I had seen huge jumps in my sales when I was
interviewed on NPR (3 times) or had a book review in The Boston Globe,
and a few other things, the massive e-mailing to my Web fans produced
no discernible increase in sales. My conclusion: Web viewers don’t buy
many hardcover books.”

Mr. Anderson stands by his work, and
his use of Mr. Muller as an example. “To suggest that all Web viewers
don’t buy books seems premature,” said Mr. Anderson in an interview
with The Chronicle. He argued that the professor’s exposure on
YouTube most likely helped the sales of his book, even if indirectly.
For instance, the popularity of the videos may have made reviewers more
interested in writing about the book.

“If he believes
there’s no correlation, that’s interesting,” said Mr. Anderson. “We
have done the same type of experiments and we conclude otherwise.”

“Every product is different and every person is different,” he added. “You’ve got to find your own way to monetize celebrity.” —Jeffrey R. Young

Comments

And to prove that he doesn’t understand
that correlation is not causation, Anderson asserts that he does see a
correlation. But, of course, Muller does not deny a correlation, he
points out that that does not provide evidence that one thing is
causing the other. Arguments about the Web seem to me often to be made
up of this sort of fallacious conflation of correlation and causation,
along with “wishful thinking.”

See my post (the first one) on Anderson’s self-promotion
in the previous posting of his inane proposition that free is the
future of fortune:
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3869/college-lectures-should-be-free-online-argues-wired-magazine-editor-in-new-book

Anderson’s
thesis is 1995 Negropontean (being digital), an immensely flawed book
as it fails to see how marketing would take advantage of programming.

By
now, every journalist should know that hits on a Web site do not
translate into sales, whether we’re talking about books or newsprint.

I’m
astounded that an author like Anderson didn’t fact check his assertions
about Richard Muller whose serious science seems tainted by the hoopla
leaps in logic (i.e. more interactive exposure equals more sales).

That
said, I send kudos to Jeffrey Young for challenging Anderson and
providing his readers with first-class journalism rather than rehashed
technology “news.”

Muller might be right and Anderson wrong on the specific
issue of “causality,” but I think Muller suffers from a surprisingly
common delusion among academics: “People publish my books because I’m
brilliant.” Not because publishers are desperate to recover their
costs, and because name recognition, trendiness, pedigree, and other
factors are at work, but because . . . well, because he’s so smart that
editors walk into his office and say things like, “Have any good
ideas?”

Actually, Muller accounts for the points about recouping
costs and making a profit by noting that he had worked with the editor
on 8 previous books. That suggests a proven track record in producing
books that make money, and reflect well on the publisher. While Muller
may suffer from the academic delusion that he is published because he’s
brilliant (who doesn’t?), his track record with the publisher would
seem to be the most salient reason this book is getting published.

It’s no small task to be published by Norton, I assure
you; nor are editors there likely to be impressed with YouTube posts of
Richard A. Muller’s lectures. They do recognize that he is a member of
one of the best physics departments in the world, at Berkeley, with an
exceptional vita that contains both scholarly and teaching awards,
indicating he can convey core truths about complex topics. Those
editors also know that mainstream media continues to be the best route
for book sales as many have third-party agreements with sellers.
National Public Radio, for instance, has such an agreement with Amazon.
Dr. Muller’s book was featured in December on NPR’s
“Science Fridays.” For those who would like to hear him, here is the
link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97848779